a constant bombardment of fear porn

From different COVID alphabet variants, to senseless studies on viral evolution, and a growing fear over "shedding".

I’ve been working on a few different posts that I stopped short of due to various reasons, but of note I’ve noticed a sort of mental fatigue in the past few months.

Part of it I owe to the constant bombardment of fear porn. Many people have covered fear porn, and I have done it myself. However, in lieu of recent events I wanted to address this sudden rise in fear mongering from various places.

The COVID variant alphabet

Apparently just as soon as the prior variants, subvariants, or whatever they called came about we’re supposed to be scared of a new “whatever this COVID naming scheme is” form of SARS-COV2 labeled XBB.

I really don’t know what’s going on with this naming scheme, but it may be done more with the intent of confusion rather than creating distinct variants. Or the namers may be trying to make a name for themselves unironically.

Also, are virologists consulting with Japanese game developer and convoluted namer Tetsuya Namoura in how to name SARS-COV2? Just a random thought…

Tetsuya Namoura is the head developer for some of Square Enix’s video games, most notably Kingdom Hearts which the fans have poked fun at for having absolutely convoluted names for some of their games, such as the unnecessary 0.2 seen above. Another noteworthy one is Kingdom Hearts 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue. One may assume that the 0.2 and the 2.8 add up to Kingdom Hearts 3, but it’s still such a ridiculous naming scheme!

This is weeks after we were told to be concerned about BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 which became the dominant…whatever.

Right now, XBB appears to be gaining traction, although it’s still far behind the other subvariants circulating. The CDC variant tracker data only suggests around a 5.5% prevalence of XBB given the most up-to-date data:

So why all of the fear over something that has hardly made any headway? XBB appears to be part of this strange new Omicron enclave, and aside from that there really doesn’t appear to be anything significantly different between XBB and BQ.1 or BQ.1.1, so again why this incessant fear mongering over something that could just as easily be seen as more of “same same, but different”.

Now, one important issue with this enclave is that some of the monoclonal antibody therapies in use such as Bebtelovimab and the prophylactic Evusheld may not actually be effective. Evusheld is critical since it was the only prophylactic previously available. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a super surprise.

Evusheld may be ineffective against the coming BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 wave

This variant soup fear pushed by the mainstream press only seems to be part of a broader attempt to enforce compliance, given that these incessant reports have come on the heels of the return of masking and fear over a “tripledemic”.

Remember that there isn’t anything inherently out of the ordinary with the circulating alphabet soup variants. Be mindful of these ridiculous attempts to push further fear.

Also, when it comes to the “most immune evasive variant everer”, remember that it’s at least expect that the ever-changing immune landscape would inherently favor variants that are able to evade the immune system established from the previous variant. So this again is another obvious point introduced with the language of fear.

Which leads me into my next point:

Mainstream reporting on a virus being a virus

Speaking of mutations and variants, a recent study came out¹ which suggests that SARS-COV2 may actually mutate to become even more dangerous than before.

This piece attempts to refute some of the widely held beliefs that viruses tend not to lean in the direction of becoming more transmissible while sacrificing virulence:

The analysis “may indicate that SARS-CoV-2 evolution in long-term infection does not have to result in attenuation,” the researchers said in their findings, which were released on Nov. 24. “It may indicate that a future variant could be more pathogenic than currently circulating omicron strains.”

To the notion of the transmissibility/virulence paradigm, I am actually of the mindset that this notion hasn’t gone through rigorous testing, and is likely part of a group of scientific ideas which were substantiated based on how often the idea was cited rather than any actual evidence to its existence and veracity. This is know as the Bellman’s Fallacy², which may be worth discussion at some later point given that we all use this fallacy.

However, note that this study has a few quirks to it that require immediate hesitation with the pronouncements of a “more dangerous variant”.

Importantly, this study was conducted in someone infected with a severe case of HIV i.e. heavily immunocompromised, and the researchers took samples at various timepoints to test the fusogenicity and the ability of the mutations to cause cell death.

Although the researchers’ findings allude to this occurring, the fact that this occurred in an immunocompromised individual actually creates many problems as it removes the actually role of the host immune defense in fighting the virus.

By using someone without a proper functioning immune system, the researchers essentially removed a pivotal barrier in virus/host dynamics, which means that the virus really only needs to compete with other viruses to become more competent.

The forms of the virus carrying the most beneficial mutations will, of course, outcompete the less competent mutants, so this study really doesn’t add anything alarming, and instead sort of emphasis the point that without some form of external pressure a virus only needs to compete with itself.

Given that most of us have an active immune system, we really should look at this study with hesitation and understand that the real-world applications of this study are likely to be minimal.

A word of caution to the mRNA shedding hypothesis

I spent the good bit of this morning working on a separate post intended to provide a response to this hypothesis on mRNA shedding:

Let’s say that the post was rather disorganized and became far too verbose (hypocritical, right?).

The general premise of the hypothesis is that mRNA, similar to spike from vaccinated individuals, carries a risk of exposure to unvaccinated individuals and possible health consequences.

The following is taken from the Abstract:

Vaccine mRNA-carrying lipid nanoparticles spread after injection throughout the body according to available animal studies and vaccine mRNA (naked or in nanoparticles or innatural exosomes) is found in the bloodstream as well as vaccine spike in free form or encapsulated in exosomes (shown in human studies). Lipid nanoparticles (or their natural equivalent, exosomes or extracellular vesicles (EVs)) have been shown to be able to be excreted through body fluids (sweat, sputum, breast milk) and to pass the transplacental barrier. These EVs are also able to penetrate by inhalation and through the skin (healthy or injured) as well as orally through breast milk (and why not during sexual intercourse through semen, as this has not been studied). It is urgent to enforce the legislation on gene therapy that applies to mRNA vaccines and to carry out studies on this subject while the generalization of mRNA vaccines is being considered.

In short, I think the hypothesis proposed by Banoun is interesting and worth investigating. However, when looking at some of the citations I found myself rather wanting of corroborating evidence to the above hypothesis.

For instance, there doesn’t appear to be any cited studies showing the possible spread of mRNA from person to person. Many of the citations actually look at differences in mode of mRNA or vaccine delivery in individuals, and how much circulation occurs within someone, but doesn’t provide any details to the transmission of others outside of the widely cited mRNA in breastmilk study³, which is both alarming but raises questions to the clinical significance of these findings. It also points to transfer of mRNA through fluids, and not through inhalation or skin contact which many people have taken away from this hypothesis.

One study cited, such as this one from Brohi, et al.⁴ refers to a broad number of molecules that would otherwise be categorized as nanoparticles. It's a reminder that things are categorized as nano due to size, and nothing else. The review notes that inhalation of nanoparticles such as cadmium oxide (CdO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) due to environmental pollutants, but again makes no reference to LNPs or the vaccines and how readily one could inhale stuff from the vaccines.

Now, I should note that I haven’t looked meticulously at every citation, and looked mostly at places where allusions to inhalation and skin exposure came with a citation.

Nonetheless, this can be a problem because one may see this hypothesis and say that it relies on tenuous associations to make the argument. I wouldn’t consider some of the citations to be convincing for me personally.

With that being said, the hypothesis notes several bits of anecdotal evidence which may be considered problematic, but when there’s no earnest attempt to look at the problem one cannot be blamed for turning to anecdotal evidence.

And that’s probably the more significant point to Banoun’s hypothesis, as she concludes that one of the serious issues with these vaccines is the lack of research being done to actually look into the problem.

One serious flaw in current science pedagogy is to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is to say, “if I don’t look then it’s not a problem".

Or taken from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry:

One cannot critically assume that the vaccines will not travel, or that they are inherently safe if one chooses not to look or do the proper investigation to prove the safeness of these products.

Banoun ends her article raising concerns over the lack of robust pharmacokinetics data, especially given that mRNA technology is being used for other vaccines:

The mRNA (and adenovirus) vaccines correspond exactly to the definition of gene therapy given by the health agencies (FDA, NIH and EMA). According to the regulations of these agencies, these products should be subject to additional pharmacokinetic studies (in particular excretion studies) as a matter of urgency as the widespread use of mRNA technology becomes apparent. Indeed, Sanofi launched clinical trial of the first mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine candidate [92], Moderna launched phase 3 trial of mRNA influenza vaccine [93]. For these flu vaccines, emergency approval should not be applied and the requirement for these additional studies should not be exceeded.

Overall, I would caution a bit of hesitancy in drawing immediate conclusions from this hypothesis. Remember that this is a hypothesis, which requires further investigating and testing. As to whether pharmaceutical manufacturers will provide these studies is of another question…

---

Before I end this post I would just like to make a few comments on some of the fear porn that can prop up on “our side” or whatever this collection of people would be called.

Dr. McCullough appeared in an interview with Tanya Gaw, which can be seen on Rumble (apologies for the inability to embed the interview. Rumble get on it!).

People have used clips from this interview when discussing Banoun’s hypothesis. However, I wanted to point people to the 39:30 mark (again, no embedding so open the video and click over to that timepoint).

As I stated, I don’t think the evidence would adamantly support such an argument, but what I found rather concerning were some of the comments made by Dr. McCullough and Tanya Gaw suggesting a possible zero case exposure to vaccinated individuals (Tanya Gaw alludes to a family member getting sick from going to a BBQ with vaccinated individuals leading to no contact").

Dr. McCullough also made a comment about not having sexual contact with a vaccinated individual for 30 days, extended to possibly 90 days and possibly indefinitely.

Now, I should comment that this isn’t a castigation of Dr. McCullough or Tanya Gaw, but in hearing this idea, as well as the general shedding issue I’m concerned as to how much these narratives may enforce some of the ideas and behaviors that have got us into this mess.

If we think shedding is occurring, does that mean we should start wearing masks⁵, should we isolate or card vaccinated people. Should we just avoid seeing anyone unless they can show us our papers, but I suppose if we assume mRNA is being transferred into other people wouldn’t that mean no one is safe? Many of the grocery workers at the store may be vaccinated. Hell, all of the stores you visit, and the chamber that is a plane or a train would expose you to all sorts of shedding as well. Should we just stop going out and travelling at all for fear of being exposed to shedders?

In hearing such comments I can’t help but hear the same narratives that told us not to see loved ones or grandma will day. Now grandma may just spew spike protein all over the grand children (allegedly), so grandma can’t see any family members.

I’m reminded of the elderly people in nursing homes who said that they would rather die of COVID than die of loneliness. I wonder how many people are going to reneg on that notion if we throw vaccine shedding into the whole kerfuffle.

People are free to choose who they associate with, including if it means not interacting with vaccinated people for fear over shedding.

But is a life lived in fear really a life worth living? For the same prostrations that we will all leave when it is our time, wouldn’t we prefer to spend the time we have actually living and not just staying alive?

Again, no castigation of McCullough or Gaw, but in hearing such comments I’m sure many other people may have the same sentiments, and I’m concerned that we may see this growing level of fear and anxiety from all sides.

Just be aware that fear can come in many forms, and we should do our best to avoid falling into fear.

Anyways, I would like to hear people’s thoughts on the interview and some of the comments made in regards to shedding.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. SARS-CoV-2 evolves increased infection elicited cell death and fusion in an immunosuppressed individual

Gila Lustig, Yashica Ganga, Hylton Rodel, Houriiyah Tegally, Laurelle Jackson, Sandile Cele, Khadija Khan, Zesuliwe Jule, Kajal Reedoy, Farina Karim, Mallory Bernstein, Mahomed-Yunus S. Moosa, Derseree Archary, Tulio de Oliveira, Richard Lessells, Salim S. Abdool Karim, Alex Sigal

medRxiv 2022.11.23.22282673; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.23.22282673

2. Put another way, the Bellman fallacy suggests that something becomes factual or true on the basis of it being constantly repeated, and not necessarily due to any actual evidence. It comes from Lewis Carroll’s work called the hunting of the snark, in which the character of the Bellman notes that he knows where the snark is by constantly reiterating this point.

The relevant piece here:

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide

By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true." [Carroll]

Excerpt taken from this BMJ article, so it may not be exactly the same as Lewis Carroll’s actual work.

3. Hanna N, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, et al. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1268–1270. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581

4. Brohi, R. D., Wang, L., Talpur, H. S., Wu, D., Khan, F. A., Bhattarai, D., Rehman, Z. U., Farmanullah, F., & Huo, L. J. (2017). Toxicity of Nanoparticles on the Reproductive System in Animal Models: A Review. Frontiers in pharmacology, 8, 606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00606

5. Please remember that the comments on face masks are being facetious here. If the virus is small enough to penetrate most masks, certainly the spike will be even smaller and therefore more penetrable.